GNU bug report logs - #30693
Xonotic

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 30693 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 30693 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Xonotic
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:34:27 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

This adds xonotic. I'm not sure about the "x11" license part.
In general it works.

-- 
A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
https://n0.is/~ng0

[0001-gnu-Add-xonotic.patch (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #8 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Cc: 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:00:09 +0100

Hi ng0,

ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is> skribis:

> This adds xonotic. I'm not sure about the "x11" license part.

Rather than hope that Someone™ will check the license, could you take a
look and let us know?  :-)

Definitions in (guix licenses) contain URLs to the full license texts,
if in doubt.

TIA,
Ludo’.

Message #11 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:19:32 +0000

Ludovic Courtès transcribed 316 bytes:
> Hi ng0,
> 
> ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is> skribis:
> 
> > This adds xonotic. I'm not sure about the "x11" license part.
> 
> Rather than hope that Someone™ will check the license, could you take a
> look and let us know?  :-)
> 
> Definitions in (guix licenses) contain URLs to the full license texts,
> if in doubt.
> 
> TIA,
> Ludo’.

I just compared "server/rcon.pl" to the text of X11 license
and all that's missing is:


Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall
not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or
other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
from the X Consortium.

X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.



So I'd say this is x11-style and not x11, is this correct?



According to "COPYING", I also need to add gpl3 to the gpl2.
They state that all contributions are gpl2+, do I have to state
gpl3 then?

I (or: the tool I used) missed some licenses, so I'll have to
send a new version of the patches.
-- 
A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
https://n0.is/~ng0

Message #14 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Cc: 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:28:27 +0100

ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès transcribed 316 bytes:
>> Hi ng0,
>> 
>> ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is> skribis:
>> 
>> > This adds xonotic. I'm not sure about the "x11" license part.
>> 
>> Rather than hope that Someone™ will check the license, could you take a
>> look and let us know?  :-)
>> 
>> Definitions in (guix licenses) contain URLs to the full license texts,
>> if in doubt.
>> 
>> TIA,
>> Ludo’.
>
> I just compared "server/rcon.pl" to the text of X11 license
> and all that's missing is:
>
>
> Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall
> not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or
> other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
> from the X Consortium.
>
> X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.

Did you compare with <http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat> as
well?

> So I'd say this is x11-style and not x11, is this correct?

If it’s neither X11 nor Expat, ‘x11-style’ looks like the right choice,
yes.

> According to "COPYING", I also need to add gpl3 to the gpl2.
> They state that all contributions are gpl2+, do I have to state
> gpl3 then?

Please check source file headers.  Do they say “GPL version 2 or any
later version”, do they say “GPL version 2”, etc.?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #19 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
To: ludo <at> gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is, 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:41:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

This patch has been open for quite a while! Which is a shame because it
works well.

The license talked about seems to be GPL2+, see this commit:

https://github.com/xonotic/xonotic/commit/12105b36a21e7472f72933b6dd409465b5133396

They recently changed it to GPL3+, but this current release in the
patch is still GPL2+.

Is it alright if I make those changes in the licenses and push?

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #22 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is>
To: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
Cc: 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:52:54 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Rutger Helling transcribed 1.1K bytes:
> This patch has been open for quite a while! Which is a shame because it
> works well.
> 
> The license talked about seems to be GPL2+, see this commit:
> 
> https://github.com/xonotic/xonotic/commit/12105b36a21e7472f72933b6dd409465b5133396
> 
> They recently changed it to GPL3+, but this current release in the
> patch is still GPL2+.
> 
> Is it alright if I make those changes in the licenses and push?

The software would still be GPL2+. Only when we use the new one
it will be GPL3+.

As long as you keep my copyright and add yours its fine for me
(I worked some time to get this working).

Offtopic:
Did you open a new issue number to reference the old number?
I was able to see threading in notmuch but not in my actual
email client.

Ontopic:
I continued working on this in a version which only applies to
my work. A friend reported to me that there are issues with
one or two of the 3 possible runtime modes which should be
fixed.

Offtopic:
I've had some patches open waiting for months (after 3 months
I stopped counting), so for now I only submit what's necessary
and still (freshly) applies.
FYI, the vim-build-system is working just fine and
I'm integrating it in my part of the software already. It just
seems like we have no people at all interested (or with time
on their hands) to review Vim related code.
This is no critique on work done by mostly volunteers, but we
could do better. It's not criticism because I have no constructive
ideas how it could be managed better.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 30693-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
To: Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Cc: 30693-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 18:25:05 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I pushed the patch with two minor changes (licenses, invoke instead of
system for xonotic-data). Thanks again!

I didn't open a new bug, no.

I agree it's a shame about patches sometimes being in limbo for so
long. I don't see a solution other than to try to get more people
involved in Guix.

On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:52:54 +0000
Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is> wrote:

> Rutger Helling transcribed 1.1K bytes:
> > This patch has been open for quite a while! Which is a shame
> > because it works well.
> > 
> > The license talked about seems to be GPL2+, see this commit:
> > 
> > https://github.com/xonotic/xonotic/commit/12105b36a21e7472f72933b6dd409465b5133396
> > 
> > They recently changed it to GPL3+, but this current release in the
> > patch is still GPL2+.
> > 
> > Is it alright if I make those changes in the licenses and push?  
> 
> The software would still be GPL2+. Only when we use the new one
> it will be GPL3+.
> 
> As long as you keep my copyright and add yours its fine for me
> (I worked some time to get this working).
> 
> Offtopic:
> Did you open a new issue number to reference the old number?
> I was able to see threading in notmuch but not in my actual
> email client.
> 
> Ontopic:
> I continued working on this in a version which only applies to
> my work. A friend reported to me that there are issues with
> one or two of the 3 possible runtime modes which should be
> fixed.
> 
> Offtopic:
> I've had some patches open waiting for months (after 3 months
> I stopped counting), so for now I only submit what's necessary
> and still (freshly) applies.
> FYI, the vim-build-system is working just fine and
> I'm integrating it in my part of the software already. It just
> seems like we have no people at all interested (or with time
> on their hands) to review Vim related code.
> This is no critique on work done by mostly volunteers, but we
> could do better. It's not criticism because I have no constructive
> ideas how it could be managed better.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #30 received at 30693-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Charlie Ritter <chewzerita <at> posteo.net>
To: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
Cc: 30693-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Subject: Re: bug#30693: Xonotic
Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 14:43:13 -0400

Rutger Helling writes:

> I pushed the patch with two minor changes (licenses, invoke instead of
> system for xonotic-data). Thanks again!
>
> I didn't open a new bug, no.
>
> I agree it's a shame about patches sometimes being in limbo for so
> long. I don't see a solution other than to try to get more people
> involved in Guix.
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:52:54 +0000
> Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is> wrote:
>
>> Rutger Helling transcribed 1.1K bytes:
>> > This patch has been open for quite a while! Which is a shame
>> > because it works well.
>> >
>> > The license talked about seems to be GPL2+, see this commit:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/xonotic/xonotic/commit/12105b36a21e7472f72933b6dd409465b5133396
>> >
>> > They recently changed it to GPL3+, but this current release in the
>> > patch is still GPL2+.
>> >
>> > Is it alright if I make those changes in the licenses and push?
>>
>> The software would still be GPL2+. Only when we use the new one
>> it will be GPL3+.
>>
>> As long as you keep my copyright and add yours its fine for me
>> (I worked some time to get this working).
>>
>> Offtopic:
>> Did you open a new issue number to reference the old number?
>> I was able to see threading in notmuch but not in my actual
>> email client.
>>
>> Ontopic:
>> I continued working on this in a version which only applies to
>> my work. A friend reported to me that there are issues with
>> one or two of the 3 possible runtime modes which should be
>> fixed.
>>
>> Offtopic:
>> I've had some patches open waiting for months (after 3 months
>> I stopped counting), so for now I only submit what's necessary
>> and still (freshly) applies.
>> FYI, the vim-build-system is working just fine and
>> I'm integrating it in my part of the software already. It just
>> seems like we have no people at all interested (or with time
>> on their hands) to review Vim related code.
>> This is no critique on work done by mostly volunteers, but we
>> could do better. It's not criticism because I have no constructive
>> ideas how it could be managed better.

Yay!  Good work!

Message #33 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
Cc: 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 00:22:33 +0200

Hello Rutger & Nils,

Thanks for taking care of this!

One minor issue: ‘x11-style’ is a procedure, not a <license> object,
hence:

  $ ./pre-inst-env guix lint xonotic
  gnu/packages/games.scm:5153:13: xonotic <at> 0.8.2: invalid license field

‘x11-style’ takes a URI as an argument.  I’d fix it myself but I’m not
sure what needs to go there.  Could you take a look?  Perhaps ng0 knows
why ‘x11-style’ is listed?

Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.

Message #36 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 23:21:24 +0000

Ludovic Courtès transcribed 514 bytes:
> Hello Rutger & Nils,
> 
> Thanks for taking care of this!
> 
> One minor issue: ‘x11-style’ is a procedure, not a <license> object,
> hence:
> 
>   $ ./pre-inst-env guix lint xonotic
>   gnu/packages/games.scm:5153:13: xonotic <at> 0.8.2: invalid license field
> 
> ‘x11-style’ takes a URI as an argument.  I’d fix it myself but I’m not
> sure what needs to go there.  Could you take a look?  Perhaps ng0 knows
> why ‘x11-style’ is listed?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Ludo’.

Sorry, no idea. My original patch has x11 instead of x11-style.
As I already wrote, from my perspective this was far from ready for merge,
but basic functionality is there (it works in one mode) and it passed
one review.
I think I changed some bits after moving it out of gnu/packages, but I
haven't read the package definition in a while.

Definitely wasn't me who put x11 instead of x11-style there.

Message #39 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
To: Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 10:31:56 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Sorry about that! I changed it to x11-style, but didn't add any URIs.
I've fixed the licenses to refer to the correct file (rcon.pl).

On Sat, 26 May 2018 23:21:24 +0000
Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is> wrote:

> Ludovic Courtès transcribed 514 bytes:
> > Hello Rutger & Nils,
> > 
> > Thanks for taking care of this!
> > 
> > One minor issue: ‘x11-style’ is a procedure, not a <license> object,
> > hence:
> > 
> >   $ ./pre-inst-env guix lint xonotic
> >   gnu/packages/games.scm:5153:13: xonotic <at> 0.8.2: invalid license
> > field
> > 
> > ‘x11-style’ takes a URI as an argument.  I’d fix it myself but I’m
> > not sure what needs to go there.  Could you take a look?  Perhaps
> > ng0 knows why ‘x11-style’ is listed?
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Ludo’.  
> 
> Sorry, no idea. My original patch has x11 instead of x11-style.
> As I already wrote, from my perspective this was far from ready for
> merge, but basic functionality is there (it works in one mode) and it
> passed one review.
> I think I changed some bits after moving it out of gnu/packages, but I
> haven't read the package definition in a while.
> 
> Definitely wasn't me who put x11 instead of x11-style there.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #42 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
Cc: 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 15:04:37 +0200

Hi!

Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com> skribis:

> Sorry about that! I changed it to x11-style, but didn't add any URIs.
> I've fixed the licenses to refer to the correct file (rcon.pl).

Alright, thanks for the quick fix!

Ludo’.

Message #45 received at 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Cc: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>, 30693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#30693] Xonotic
Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 15:06:00 +0200

Hi!

Nils Gillmann <ng0 <at> n0.is> skribis:

> Definitely wasn't me who put x11 instead of x11-style there.

Just to be clear: I wasn’t looking for someone to blame (why blame
people who do the work?!), but rather for a solution.  :-)

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.